"Rate of Arctic summer sea ice loss is 50% higher than predicted"

63 posts / 0 new
Last post
miksilvr

I found this item on the http://350.org/ twitter page while browsing today ... not a pretty picture.  This is Bill McKibben's group.  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/11/arctic-sea-ice-vanishing 

...

https://twitter.com/350     or @350 

 

Comments

Capital1
Capital1's picture
O boy,  Master

O boy,  Master hyperventilator, Bill McKibben. 

Wonder why he just couldn't wait the 30 days to the start of the Minimum to actually know for sure. 

But since the Ice record is only 33 years old,  He doesn't have anything to compare it to.   

drc2
Why am I more inclined to

Why am I more inclined to think McKibben knows a lot more about the science than you do?  According to you, we cannot possibly know enough to know anything that would matter when the shit comes down.  At least you get the benefit of denial to your anxiety.  You can go peacefully into that dark night after all, with just a dash more of this crack.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
drc2 wrote:Why am I more

drc2 wrote:
Why am I more inclined to think McKibben knows a lot more about the science than you do?  According to you, we cannot possibly know enough to know anything that would matter when the shit comes down.  At least you get the benefit of denial to your anxiety.  You can go peacefully into that dark night after all, with just a dash more of this crack.

Confirmation bias would be my first guess.  McKibben is an enviromentalist, not a scientist. 

Since I just looked up the Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent from Cyrosphere and since nothing I have said is wrong in any way..  So, I'm guessing some sort of bias makes you inclined to believe Him over the facts. 

When was the last major Heat wave in comparison?   1936.   Do we have the Sea Ice extent to compare with from 1936.  NO.  So technically.  WE don't know anything about the Sea ice extent during heat waves.  Yet McKibben's got it all figured out..  One could only imagine how he managed all that.. 

 

ShellyT
ShellyT's picture
Climate change is the most

Climate change is the most important challenge facing the human race right now, and people act like we can just adapt. We can't adapt to what's coming if nothing is done.

For people who want a good new/old podcast about climate change and related subjects like war and peace, check out Impact Files.

http://impactfiles.net/

 

delete jan in iowa
ShellyT wrote: Climate change

ShellyT wrote:

Climate change is the most important challenge facing the human race right now, and people act like we can just adapt. We can't adapt to what's coming if nothing is done.

Shelly, you're on the right tract.  

However, the REAL problem is that the plants, insects and animals will not have TIME to adapt.  Plants, animals and insects need TIME to adapt to changes in the climate.  The food crops that we now consider to be fundamental to our diets may not be available if the pollinating insects are gone and the swings in weather are so extreme that crops do not come to harvest.  Here lies the problem....

Mass extinctions occur when there is RAPID CHANGE IN THE ENVIRONMENT.

JTaylor
JTaylor's picture
So what causes the Greenhouse

So what causes the Greenhouse Effect?

Clearcutting of the world's forests for paper and lumber removes the Earth's natural filtration and oxygenating systems.  This combined with the worldwide burning of fossil fuels with high CO2 output leaves the atmosphere with an excess of carbon-dioxide and unnatural levels of other gases.  This creates a situation where the Earth cannot properly regulate itself and it absorbs more of the sun's energy than normal, creating changes in the ecosystem.  This has all started in the past 100 years.

Of course there is more involved but this explanation should be sufficient to the layman.

So how do we reverse the trend?

Obviously we have to use better fuel sources and we need to grow more trees.  A global end to the burning of fossil fuels and an end to deforestation will correct the problem.  If we do that, however, we won't all have the gasoline to drive to work or the wood to build houses worth living in.  So what do we do?  We legalize marijuana.

The stalk of the Cannabis Sativa plant is the only resource on Earth capable of replacing all fossil fuels for the world's gasoline and electricity, and the only resource on Earth capable of replacing trees for paper and lumber, while simultaneously taking in excess CO2 from the atmosphere and producing clean oxygen.  The only way to end our dependence on fossil fuels and still have all of our energy is to legalize the marijuana plant.  The only way to end the clearcutting of rainforests and still have all of our paper and construction materials is to legalize the marijuana plant.  The only way to keep our industries at their current level (and even expand them) and reverse the environmental damage done is to legalize and grow the marijuana plant.

Cannabis Sativa is not just that little 3-ft plant in your kids' college dorm closets.  It is the 15 to 20-ft tree with a trunk the size of your thigh that can grow in every climate on Earth.  An end to deforestation and an end to war for limited resources are within our grasp.  It has been within our grasp for the past 70 years.  By 1937, when agricultural technology had finally expanded to a point where Cannabis hemp production was not hindered by a prohibitive amount of human labor, "Marihuana" was outlawed in the United States.  When use of modern agricultural technology in Cannabis production threatened to dismantle the timber and petroleum industries, "Marihuana" was outlawed.  We have been at the mercy of timber and petroleum companies ever since.

Had marijuana never been outlawed, there would never have been a Greenhouse Effect.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
JTaylor wrote:   We legalize

JTaylor wrote:

  We legalize marijuana.

I generally find there is one fatal flaw in the Pro marijuana campaign....   It's when the Pro marijuana supporters start talking.

Pot/Hemp is not the second coming of Jesus Christ.  It will not part the Sea,  turn blood into wine,  Nor will it solve all the socioeconomic problems of the Planet. 

It IS however a glactic waste of resources for what would amount to small social cost. 

But until you can figure out how to test for it in employee's and Drivers....  You have a serious roadblock. 

Redwing
Redwing's picture
Maybe we should look at it

Maybe we should look at it this way.  If everyone was always on pot, nobody would care about temporary ice loss.

JTaylor
JTaylor's picture
Capital1 wrote:JTaylor

Capital1 wrote:

JTaylor wrote:
We legalize marijuana.

I generally find there is one fatal flaw in the Pro marijuana campaign....   It's when the Pro marijuana supporters start talking.

Pot/Hemp is not the second coming of Jesus Christ.  It will not part the Sea,  turn blood into wine,  Nor will it solve all the socioeconomic problems of the Planet. 

It IS however a glactic waste of resources for what would amount to small social cost. 

But until you can figure out how to test for it in employee's and Drivers....  You have a serious roadblock.


You should click on that link.  Let what you're reading sink in.  No one said anything about Cannabis performing miracles, although there are thousands of cancer patients around the world who might argue otherwise.  I simply offered a link to a US government study nearly 100 years old now which states that one acre of Cannabis/marijuana/hemp plants can produce four times more paper than one acre of wild forest, impressing the fact that if we legalize marijuana again, hemp will replace trees for paper and the resulting ecological benefits to the entire planet will be immense.  This is elementary science.  Not fairy-tale miracles.

DynoDon
Has anybody cornered the

Has anybody cornered the snorkel market yet?

Capital1
Capital1's picture
JTaylor wrote: You should

JTaylor wrote:

You should click on that link.  Let what you're reading sink in.  No one said anything about Cannabis performing miracles

"The stalk of the Cannabis Sativa plant is the only resource on Earth capable of replacing all fossil fuels for the world's gasoline and electricity, and the only resource on Earth capable of replacing trees for paper and lumber, while simultaneously taking in excess CO2 from the atmosphere and producing clean oxygen."

Yea..... 

Quote:
thousands of cancer patients around the world who might argue otherwise

Thousands...  Oooo   Yea..  It's a drug,  Got that.   Thanks. 

Quote:
  I simply offered a link to a US government study nearly 100 years old now which states that one acre of Cannabis/marijuana/hemp plants can produce four times more paper than one acre of wild forest, impressing the fact that if we legalize marijuana again, hemp will replace trees for paper and the resulting ecological benefits to the entire planet will be immense.
 

Only 100 years old study...   Considering Hemp is legal to grow in other countries.   One would think there would be something more current.   And more......  dare I say....  Awesome to compliment your hyperbole. 

Quote:
This is elementary science. Not fairy-tale miracles. 

As I said,  the problem with Pro Hemp campaign,  Is the Pro Hemp supporters. 

JTaylor
JTaylor's picture
And what is the alternative

And what is the alternative to Cannabis legalization?  "Stay the course"?  More corporate prisons, more corporate wars, more corporate spikes in gas prices, more corporate cops, more corporate laws, more corporate dictatorships, more corporate deregulation of environmental safeguards, more man-made natural disasters?

All in a futile effort to eradicate the same "Marihuana" plant that provided American soldiers for over 200 years with the equipment they needed to protect our democracy and liberty?

Where is the logic in that?

Capital1
Capital1's picture
JTaylor wrote: And what is

JTaylor wrote:

And what is the alternative to Cannabis legalization?  "Stay the course"?  More corporate prisons, more corporate wars, more corporate spikes in gas prices, more corporate cops, more corporate laws, more corporate dictatorships, more corporate deregulation of environmental safeguards, more man-made natural disasters?

All in a futile effort to eradicate the same "Marihuana" plant that provided American soldiers for over 200 years with the equipment they needed to protect our democracy and liberty?

Where is the logic in that?

Are you whining to me?

I already told you to lower the bar on the rhetoric... The war on Pot is a galactic waste of resources for the little cost to society.

Go ahead and legalize it. And until there are better tests. Anybody caught driving or Working with TLC in their body should be fined as any drunk driver or fired as an impaired worker. Regardless whether or not they are high at the exact moment.

 

JTaylor
JTaylor's picture
So we can count on you to

So we can count on you to sign the petitions and vote to legalize it, and you'll urge others to do the same, and stand up to the corporate pigs and their lapdog cops and Federal agents who try to enforce unjust laws on our free society?  And of course you will grow your portion for the war effort to help protect our freedom and democracy again, too, right?

Thank you.  That's the spirit of a true American.  We all have to do our part.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
JTaylor wrote: So we can

JTaylor wrote:

So we can count on you to sign the petitions and vote to legalize it, and you'll urge others to do the same, and stand up to the corporate pigs and their lapdog cops and Federal agents who try to enforce unjust laws on our free society?  And of course you will grow your portion for the war effort to help protect our freedom and democracy again, too, right?

Thank you.  That's the spirit of a true American.  We all have to do our part.

See..  you should have just stopped at  "So we can count on you to sign the petitions and vote to legalize it, and you'll urge others to do the same"

"stand up to the corporate pigs and their lapdog cops and Federal agents who try to enforce unjust laws on our free society?"  makes you sound like a dumbass. 

It's already on the Ballot this year.  I don't need to sign a petition.

 

JTaylor
JTaylor's picture
It takes more than signing a

It takes more than signing a petition or voting to maintain a free society.  Revolution is our right and our duty when any government oversteps its bounds.  Aren't Conservatives always going on about "personal freedom" and "small government"?  So shouldn't Conservatives be fighting against the big government that outlaws the planet's most useful natural resource, enforces a worldwide ban on Cannabis through counterproductive treaties, trade embargoes, and even open war, and imprisons more people than any other nation on Earth, solely to further the consolidation of corporate profit, wealth and power?

Republicans should be screaming in the streets for an end to the drug war, especially since it was the Nixon-appointed Shafer Commission that recommended that Marijuana be legalized.  It was stated for Federal record that marijuana prohibition laws are more destructive to American society than the use of the drug itself.  Instead of legalizing marijuana, Nixon started the War on Drugs.  The government has been getting bigger ever since.  Now with the PATRIOT Act, any government agency can put cameras and microphones all over your house without a warrant.  That's not hyperbole.

Perhaps Conservatives don't mind giving up civil liberties to big government as much as they claim.....

humanitys team
humanitys team's picture
It takes 300 years for new

It takes 300 years for new trees to grow to the strength and size which will allow them to produce as much oxygen as many of the old growth trees that we are chopping down,the lungs of the planet ,our old growth rain forests like the amazon would take two or three thousand years to replace to balance our atmosphere,but not to worry ,we are clearing thousands of acres every year.

We are eroding the system of life that every species depends upon for the needs of one US,but we must find balance so all species thrive ,man this is simple we better wake up quick.

As our good friend JTaylor says above Hemp a wonderful little plant has so many uses,that there is a huge lobby working against it ,this is how greed replaces common sense in the conduct of human affairs.

Greed will be our un-doing ,but if we lived from a new guiding principle ,a first guiding principle :we are all one and a  second guiding principle :everything in the one interrelates .

Under these guiding principles the mutual dependency of all living things in the system of species( all living things) is recognised and honoured .The relative needs of every species of living organism within the system are always kept in balance -because they are always kept in mind.

Life will not allow us to destroy nature ,life will adapt and guy,s we might not like the result of this adaption ,it means things could get pretty bad for us .The main question we must all ask is what are we doing here on this planet and in relation to nature who are we ?,does nature exist for exploitation of the dominant species or are we going to raise some collective consciousness and understand our relationship to nature and everything in it so we can act differently.And this is why Hemp is a consciousness changer and a wonderful opportunity for tommorows tommorow today.

Namaste

anonymous green
What would you see on Earth

What would you see on Earth as the Planet Shrinks?

The wind would freak out, thanks to the Coriolis Effect.

Earthquakes, certainly.

Since the thermodynamic force we quayntly call gravity is inexorable, things fall in, never out, unless as the pressure underground builds, volcanoes blow up, and then, more earthquakes, and shrinkage. Either way, more pressure, more heat, more earthquakes.

The heat released as the planet shrunk, and the methane, would vaporize water and coat the upper atmosphere with greenhouse gas 200 times as powerful as CO2.

So it would rain, really hard.

Or you'd have drought, and fire.

Then would come about 1 thousand years of relative geologic calm.

Eventually, the world would shrink too much every day for much life to survive, but that's not the case, this time around.

miksilvr
http://www.businessinsider.co

http://www.businessinsider.com/arctic-sea-ice-will-reach-a-record-low-within-days-2012-8 

 

miksilvr
Record Arctic Snow Loss May

Record Arctic Snow Loss May Be Prolonging North American Drought

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/09/arctic-snow-melt/ 

 

Humans_And_Resources
Humans_And_Resources's picture
Where to start? The Vikings

Where to start?

The Vikings had outposts on Greenland during a heatwave - grew crops and such - the world didn't end when the permafrost there melted during those years - even with all that methane, which is much more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 - and then it got colder again to spite all that gas.

CO2 correlates with temperature thusly - first it gets hotter.  Then, as the oceans warm, they release CO2 - at least that is what the ice-cores show - hundreds of years after the Heat comes the CO2.

If you want funding from the billionaire foundations - the same ones that promulgated eugenics-theory and mourned the loss of death as disease rates fell around the world due to science, then you need to support global warming.  The oil companies support this funding via their tax-exempt foundations - a global-tax will not hurt them a bit, as they control the price (petroleum is currently sold at around 30-times the average cost of production). 

Climate changes have been rapid many times in Earth history, according to the geological record.  Sometimes many species went extinct.  We should do our best to preserve species which are threatened by future changes, but not foolishly think we can stop the Earth's climate from changing - perhaps rapidly - with current technology.

Pollution - the stuff that makes us *sick* and kills ocean-life - is another matter entirely.  This *is* a threat to human life and all life.  So let's start talking about Mercury from coal emissions (our version of the Roman's lead pipes) and auto-exhaust carcinogens - things that actually matter - not harmless CO2 that makes plants grow faster (check out greenhouse supply CO2 systems).

-----------

Re the jerks who want to "test" everyone for "drugz": If someone drives recklessly, bust them for that.  If someone doesn't produce at work, fire them for that.  Why the hell do jerks like you want to get inside everyone's body and snoop around?  And, btw, I'm not a "user" (your perjorative term) - just someone who understands the freedom takes top priority in a free country.  Wanting to force everyone else to do what you want them to do, by threatening them with homelessness (no paycheck) or being locked in a cage like rats, is a control-freak disorder called Tyranny. 

You Little Stalin-Hitlers - little frightened adult-children - will bring about control-freak America with TSA probes where the sun don't shine "to keep you safe."  Meanwhile, you will lock up people who can handle freedom and protest your Tyranny - individuals who can confidently say "no thanks" to some crap white powder offer.  Evidently, you lack the will to make the right decision, and need big govt to save you from choices.  Why not just lock yourselves in a preschool and leave the rest of us alone?

drc2
The problem is both pollution

The problem is both pollution and amount of change it causes.  In the past, we did not have the human boost from co2 and what Thom calls the last hours of ancient sunlight.  I am not in thrall to science as if there were no record of false theories being popular.  But, I do take seriously the fact that the ice is melting and that when Greenland goes, the sea level rise will change coastline geography around the globe, including filling valleys we don't think of as coastal, etc.  

One way or the other, the Dutch are going to be called upon to dike up a lot of cities and farming regions.  Getting off oil will be good for the earth and its humans.

delete jan in iowa
When the Greenland ice cap

When the Greenland ice cap melts the sea levels will rise twenty (20) feet around the globe.

polycarp2
From above: CO2 correlates

From above: CO2 correlates with temperature thusly - first it gets hotter. Then, as the oceans warm, they release CO2 - at least that is what the ice-cores show - hundreds of years after the Heat comes the CO2.

poly replies: Actually, healthy oceans absorb CO2. Dying oceans don't. They neither release nor absorb it.

"Primarily by grazing on phytoplankton, zooplankton provide carbon to the planktic foodweb, either respiring it to provide metabolic energy, or upon death as biomass or detritus. Typically more dense than seawater, organic material tends to sink. In open ocean ecosystems away from the coasts this transports carbon from surface waters to the deep. This process is known as the biological pump, and is one reason that oceans constitute the largest carbon sink on Earth."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton

---------
Hemp for Victory wrote: I simply offered a link to a US government study nearly 100 years old now which states that one acre of Cannabis/marijuana/hemp plants can produce four times more paper than one acre of wild forest, impressing the fact that if we legalize marijuana again, hemp will replace trees for paper and the resulting ecological benefits to the entire planet will be immense.

poly replies: Hemp is a carbon neutral crop with a lot of industrial applications. Most varieties are not psychoactive. The useful varieties are, however, a high fertilizer crop like wheat and will quickly deplete the soil.

In areas where hemp is grown, China, Spain, etc., crop rotation with legumes and applications of fertilizers are customary for continued production. Most of our fertilizer is synthetic and comes from oil.

Forests don't require annual fertilization to maintain productivity. Their uses, other than for their wood, are to maintain the watershed...a continual flow of streams/creeks year-round. When they disappear (as in Haiti) streams only flow when it rains.

Importing bottled water for drinking/cooking/bathing is a bit expensive.

In our own hemisphere, water flows would stop after the spring snow melt. Replacing forests with hemp probably isn't a good idea. Importing water to irrigate the hemp fields would probably be prohibitive.

The planet evolved to support life as we know it. We adapted to it, the planet didn't adapt to us. Somehow, in our arrogance, we think it should adapt to us. It won't.

That being said, prohibitions against pot are probably stupid with the greatest beneficiares of prohibition being drug cartels and private prisons.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Humans_And_Resources
Humans_And_Resources's picture
Thanks for the link on

Thanks for the link on ocean-mechanics - fascinating stuff.  Healthy oceans are surely important - especially for oxygen generation (falling oxygen levels could be a threat to human health); this is a good reason to oppose polluting them.  But ocean water temperature is a major factor in CO2 adsorption.  Cold water adsorbs more CO2 than warm water - verify this with a soda or a beer.

The ice may melt, but I do not buy into the notion that humans cause this (or very much of this) due to the fact that theories of this type have been wrong every single time - from the 'ice age' predictions to how global warming would work (but then it didn't - no rise in atmospheric temperatures where predicted) - and then we have the lies about what the ice-core-data implied and the East Ang emails showing intent to deceive.  Honest people don't act that way - and these foundation people have a long track record of being anything but decent or honest.

Also, look into "abiotic petroleum" - the Siberian deep wells found this; I haven't seen any test-results on the massive Deep Horizon find (which they tried to cap and hide to keep the price high).  The "last hours" may be a few decades off, yet - "peak oil" was a marketing campaign for higher prices coinciding with a need to put the brakes on China (versus the low-price policy used to sink the USSR). 

Speaking of Deep Horizion - take a look at how BP was able to put every scientist in the area from universities, etc 'on retainer' with gag orders, etc.  Now imagine that "buying the experts" on a global scale with billions in foundation funding, and you have the "man made global warming" so-called "scientific consensus."

polycarp2
Actually, temps have risen

Actually, temps have risen where predicted....the greatest rise being in the northern latitudes. Ice ages follow with an eventual breaking down of the Gulf Stream.

CO2 levels ultimately follow rising temps because of the increasing  methane input from permafrost melt. Methane  begins having the greater effect.

You'll know about peak oil within 10 years. Either we'll be facing huge shortgages and a collapse of societies reliant upon it,  or we won't.

It probably isn't in the best interest of oil companies to attempt selling oil in a civilization that no longer exists. If they have secret reserves, they'd best bring them on line rather quickly.

Or, perhaps like banksters, they are making one last, great heist before the whole house of cards collapses.

Consequences of global warming and oil depletion make people uncomfortable. It should. A merging of economic, resource and environmental collapse won't be pleasant.  However, denying it doesn't make consequences go away. Addressing it could. Time is short.

The dust bin of history is full of civilizations that chose denial of economic, resource, environmental collapse rather than addressing them. Among the first to disappear were the ancient civilizations of the fertile crescent. Many more followed. Imitation of that probably isn't the best policy.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

 

drc2
H and R, the idea of a great

H and R, the idea of a great conspiracy to create a "scientific consensus" on global warming (climate change) is supposed to generate big money funding for whom and to whose benefit?  Where is the pot of gold for those who challenge the biggest and most profitable corporations on the globe about their business?  Why not go to work for the money if the point is getting a lot of money?

The possibility that the consensus is wrong is always there, I guess.  The history of science includes fads and false leads.  But I see more attempts to make science more than it is than bad observation.  Eugenics was about proving what they already believed.  I don't find a lot of people locked into the idea that our industrial pollution and use of ancient carbon release is a problem before they made enough observations to be asking what was going on.  There really is no incentive to want this result.  Even if it is true that big changes in climate have happened before, how does that prove that this one is not being triggered by our big global activity?  

Were your dismissive theory persuasive, why wouldn't it be really good news to those concerned about what they see happening?  You could start buying Greenland farms and beach front properties for a song.

Finally, we did see how the money from BP et. al. was used to silence science.  I am no stranger to the piper being paid in the Corporate funded 'university.'  This is what makes those who are not in thrall to corporate worth hearing.  They are honestly convinced of their theories based on research and scholarly exchange.  They are not doing what is "smart" professionally in any other way than showing their own professional integrity.

There are "tobacco scientists" who either believe they know or have legitimate questions about the consensus on cancer.  Pluralism does bring some "dead-enders" and psychological skeptics.  It is good to have them involved if only to force us to address questions we would never entertain, or to pose a challenge to our assumptions that makes us improve our thinking even if we were correct.

The point I challenge in your post is that there are great foundation fortunes to be tapped by going against Big Oil.  If they are wrong, the critics of current policy are at least honest and not chasing the dollars they could have had so easily by joining the BP team.

Humans_And_Resources
Humans_And_Resources's picture
Let me start with a link I

Let me start with a link I should have put up at first. If this is bull, I'd like to hear a presentation debunking its points.

drc2 wrote:
H and R, the idea of a great conspiracy to create a "scientific consensus" on global warming (climate change) is supposed to generate big money funding for whom and to whose benefit?  Where is the pot of gold for those who challenge the biggest and most profitable corporations on the globe about their business? Why not go to work for the money if the point is getting a lot of money?

The "biggest and most profitable corporations on the globe" fund the foundations that push man-made global warming theory.  The pot of gold is the "tax" on doing pretty much anything which uses energy and the "Carbon Trading Floor" broker's cut of the action - which would have rivaled WallSt, and in which Gore was heavily invested. 

Energy + Technology are the primary reasons why we do not live like we did in 1600.  One gallon of fuel = 80 hours of backbreaking labor.  But the point is not only money - we are talking about people who could burn $100 bills all day and not keep up with the growth in their accounts.  The point is Control. 

drc2 wrote:
Eugenics was about proving what they already believed.  I don't find a lot of people locked into the idea that our industrial pollution and use of ancient carbon release is a problem before they made enough observations to be asking what was going on. Even if it is true that big changes in climate have happened before, how does that prove that this one is not being triggered by our big global activity?

We agree on the last point - but we do not have proof of causation *Either Way*.  That is my problem with the "we know" people.

drc2 wrote:
Were your dismissive theory persuasive, why wouldn't it be really good news to those concerned about what they see happening?  You could start buying Greenland farms and beach front properties for a song.

The Vikings tried that, a bunch thawed and gassed off - then it got cold again and they had to abandon the project.  I would like to see ocean rise records from the Medieval warming period.  It may be that, as today, Antarctic Ice reached record highs and took up some of the slack. 

 

drc2 wrote:
Finally, we did see how the money from BP et. al. was used to silence science.  I am no stranger to the piper being paid in the Corporate funded 'university.'  This is what makes those who are not in thrall to corporate worth hearing.  They are honestly convinced of their theories based on research and scholarly exchange.  They are not doing what is "smart" professionally in any other way than showing their own professional integrity.

Ok, this is a very important point that most on the Left (including myself for many years) do not get.  The "left" we hear about is owned by the same people who "own" the right.  They use Tax-Free Foundations which Rockefeller and Carnegie (and now many others) setup - initially to try to cover the bad press from their respective massacres of workers.  They operate as "humanitarian charity" organizations and fund universities, NGOs, Think Tanks, etc.  They CREATE what becomes policy from scratch through these orgs - including cultivating the "experts" they need via scholarships, etc.  I don't mean brainwashing Manchurian candidates, though that occurs to some extent via selection of curriculum; I mean selecting those who echo their lines. 

This system is global.  Consider what American "experts" think about Indonesia; these are the people you will see on TeeVee.  Here is how and why they think what they do:
https://webspace.utexas.edu/hcleaver/www/357L/357LRansomBerkeleyMafia.htm

The same is true for the climate folks.  They need grant money to continue working.  The foundations provide that.  If Exxon et al really wanted to stop this line of thinking, they would put a few billion into the match - not a few million to "make the fight look kinda real." 

Notice how the insurance cartels came out guns blazing against single-payer Hillarycare?  Thelma and Louise ads on TeeVee 24-7 !! That is what they are capable of if they go at half-effort (given they underwrote the Hillarycare scheme while counter-proposing what we today call Obamacare via the "Right" hand - hedged bets as usual). Just try to imagine the result, if all the oil companies and shieks put all they had into destroying mmgw on tee-vee with the best that Bernays' protegets could deliver. "Starving children because of Gore" picket signs and bilboards with hi-color pictures. Songs on every radio station written by Bono's evil twin - there would be "global development festivals."  

 

drc2 wrote:
There are "tobacco scientists" who either believe they know or have legitimate questions about the consensus on cancer.  Pluralism does bring some "dead-enders" and psychological skeptics.  It is good to have them involved if only to force us to address questions we would never entertain, or to pose a challenge to our assumptions that makes us improve our thinking even if we were correct.

RJR et al had a very different position than the oil cartels. When tobacco gets more expensive or is shown to be dangerous, people quit. When oil gets more expensive or is perceived to be dangerous, usage may drop somewhat, but with the "peak oil" theory, the price can be raised to compensate.  To "quit" oil means ~90% of us have to become farmers again, which is unlikely.  There was no "peak tobacco" equivalent.  The Tobacco scientists were being paid by the "right" hand of the elites - as with the BP scientists.  The foundations are the "Left" hand of the same families.

 

drc2 wrote:
The point I challenge in your post is that there are great foundation fortunes to be tapped by going against Big Oil.  If they are wrong, the critics of current policy are at least honest and not chasing the dollars they could have had so easily by joining the BP team.

My point is there may be two "teams" but they are both playing for the same "League" who wins either way, but is heavily favoring the "mmgw" team.  The fake-game has to look good - just like the "protests" by some bank execs before the Fed was created (the scheme the same guys had designed on Jekyll Island).

Regulations are usually about "control" even more than money - though there is a conversion between them on some levels.  But most regulations are about eliminating competition - not "helping little us" - whom the Elites clearly don't care about - see "wars".

Another big question would be, "Why was BP trying to cap a massive find with record pressure, right next to "refinery-coast" Louisiana?"  The investment in rig and dig was complete, there was no need to run a pipe clear up to Canada, and burn upteen billion meters of natural gas to "make" the oil from tar sand @ $35/barrel.  It makes no sense to cap that if "we don't have enough to meet demand" and they really wanted to make more money.  Also note, when the Iran sanctions kicked in, "our" head/hand-chopping Saudi "friends" raised production to compensate - so why weren't the Brit-installed House of Saud dictators running full-steam already if we cannot keep up with demand?

I don't pretend to have all the answers to this.  China, the new enemy they are building up (like they did Hitler - but on a more massive scale) is a factor.  But there is far more going on in private meetings than I could know.  First order of business, all well-data must become public domain - it is Our Earth and we all have a right to know what is down there.  Second, all correspondence between "scientists" working on projects affecting public policy shall be public - no "email hackers" required - put it all on the table and no scheming - facts don't need 5th Ave PR spin.  Third, all records of any organization requesting or obtaining tax-free status shall be placed in the public domain.

delete jan in iowa
The speaker on your video

The speaker on your video link was Bob Carter.  Here's a little bit about him:

Bob Carter (Robert M. Carter) is a retired Australian marine geologist and a paid AGW denier. He is also an adjunct (unpaid[1]) Research Fellow at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University" in Australia,[2] and on the academic advisory council of the denialist front group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation.[3] Carter is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries (ExxonScaife Foundations and Koch Family Foundations, etc).[4]

According to the Sydney Morning Herald in 2007, Carter was "on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector" and believed, SMH said, that "the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed."[5]

Denialist affiliations

Carter is Chief Science Advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition[2], funded in part by the Heartland Institute[6], which is funded by the industries involved in producing greenhouse gases. Carter is also an advisor on a number of other right wing and denialist "think-tanks" and groups the Institute for Public Affairs (Aus), The Galileo Movement (Aus), the Science and Public Policy Institute (US), the International Climate Science Coalition (US/Canada), theAustralian Climate Science Coalition, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK) and Repeal the Act (UK).[7] He was a founding advisor to the New ZealandClimate Science Coalition. Carter is a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs.

Carter's own website (see image below) claimed, as recently as 2012, that he received no funding from "special interest organisations", but this was shown to be untrue with the release of private Heartland Institute documents in February 2012, which showed Carter was funded by this one front group alone to the tune of approximately $20,000 annually. Carter brushed off the revelation with the statement that being truthful about one's funding is "a very quaint and old fashioned practice".[7]

link to quote in article

Speaking at Heartland Institute events

Carter was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009), organized by the Heartland Institute[8] Carter is also listed as a speaker for the Heartland Institute's June 2009 Third International Conference on Climate Change.[9] In all, Carter has been a speaker at six of Heartland's climate change conferences.[7]

Claims

Carter's climate reasoning is selective and raises questions:

"Carter goes to some length to claim that the surface temperature record (according to institutions like NASA GISS) is unreliable. In fact he implies that it’s downright useless. Yet he also states that the satellite record is reliable...[But] if the satellite record is so reliable but the surface record is so useless, why do they agree so closely?"[10]

In March 2007, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Carter asserted that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had uncovered no evidence the warming of the planet was caused by human activity. He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research. 'I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry,' said Professor Carter. 'I will address the evidence.'" [11] Carter has also asserted that "atmospheric CO2 is not a primary forcing agent for temperature change," and claimed that "any cumulative human signal is so far undetectable at a global level and, if present, is buried deeply in the noise of natural variation". [12]

read entire article......


All roads lead back to the Koch Brothers and petroleum industry funded Heartland Institute.


darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
jan in iowa, surely you

jan in iowa, surely you realize there are paid scientists,so called "experts", on both sides of the  climate change debate. And for you to deride one side over the other based on your dogma of AGW is gullible at best.

delete jan in iowa
The scientific community and

The scientific community and the world accepts global climate change.  

It doesn't matter what you think.

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
Depends on who your

Depends on who your definition of "scientific community" is. Are they not paid just like those "scientists" (yes, whether you admit it or not doesn't matter) that disagree with your "scientists". I would dispute that "the world" accepts it.

It doesn't make it so just because you say so.

Give science time and the truth will out. Give politicians and anarchists time and you’ll go broke and end up a slave. Science is never settled, so don’t ever trust anyone who says it is; especially if they were elected, or nominated and confirmed, for the job they’re in now, or their job depends on what these folks say.

drc2
OK, serious stuff first.  I

OK, serious stuff first.  I do not agree that the scientific consensus on climate change is driven by foundation grant satisfaction.  Unless you want to dismiss any financing for any research as "bought" by commercial and partisan interests, you have to do more than show that scientists receive grant money for their research.

I have pointed to the commercial and established biases in the corporate funding of the academy.  I could also spend time decrying the way the academy has sacrificed its mission to "job training" and how that harms the curriculum and mission of the academy.  The idea that knowledge of climate change and other negative factors to our current energy 'solution,' has to be some fraud alternative is wrong.  What we can find are inadequate 'solutions' being followed by some environmental groups and some things that might be sensible as a small step v. what really needs to be done.  That there would be oil money ready to domesticate the opposition is, well, obvious.

Were warming and other issues of climate destabilization not of scientific interest, we would have plenty of other critical issues to raise.  The environmentalists could be making ocean acidification the great image, and the measures we would need to take would be essentially the same as for global warming.  It is not like if you make global warming go away that everything else will work out fine.  They don't need this issue to confront the problem of petro-imperialism.

And yes, there will be people with science badges on "both sides."  There will be "biostitutes" taking the cash and maybe even finding a way to believe it.  And exactly why is that supposed to keep us from deciding that some of them make a hell of a lot more sense than the others?  And why are we supposed to ignore who is behind them?  

Petro is alreadly vastly subsidized to make it appear affordable compared to renewables and natural sources.  The idea that we cannot make the move now is nuts.

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
It’s a fallacy that skeptics

It’s a fallacy that skeptics are funded by big oil. First, the vast majority are not and, second, big oil does not oppose carbon regulation. They stand to profit hugely from carbon controls; it is only the warmist bedwetters who would like us to think that big oil is against controls as the warmists, in their small-brained thinking, assume big oil is not smart enough to thrive in any environment.

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
"Although the liberal-left

"Although the liberal-left mainstream media has chosen to side with the climate alarmists, the other side of the story has been getting out through the alternative media. In April of this year, 49 former top NASA scientists and astronauts released a letter they had earlier sent to NASA administrator Charles Bolden expressing their belief that the claims of NASA, and specifically its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), “that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”

A large number of noted climatologists, paleoclimatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric physicists, geophysicists, oceanographers, geologists, and scientists in virtually every field has been challenging the claims of the UN’s IPCC and vigorously denouncing the politicization of IPCC “science” to promote costly and draconian global policies. Some of the IPCC’s most severe critics are scientists who have served as lead authors and expert reviewers of IPCC reports and have witnessed from the inside the blatant bias and politics masquerading as science."

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/07/16/great-numbers-on-the-lack-of-support-among-scientists-for-agw-alarmism/

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
darlinedarline1@aol.com

darlinedarline1@aol.com wrote:

Depends on who your definition of "scientific community" is. Are they not paid just like those "scientists" (yes, whether you admit it or not doesn't matter) that disagree with your "scientists". I would dispute that "the world" accepts it.

It doesn't make it so just because you say so.

Give science time and the truth will out. Give politicians and anarchists time and you’ll go broke and end up a slave. Science is never settled, so don’t ever trust anyone who says it is; especially if they were elected, or nominated and confirmed, for the job they’re in now, or their job depends on what these folks say.

So you can be a slave to real man made global warming or to a perceived man made global warming.  Those are the only two choices we have.  If it's real then you are a slave to the carbon and pollution industry that will eventually destroy the planet in search for more and more profits.  If it's only perceived and not real then you are a slave to the clean energy industry that will eventually clean up and refresh the planet in search for more profits.  Only the truly insane person would advocate for the pollution industry, especially if they aren't even part of the industry who is making those profits.  Anyone, including you, that keeps arguing about whether man made global warming is real or not is not only an accessory to the killing of the planet but truly low in intelligence.  Because there is only one stance that you can take that ensures the future of this planet.

drc2
Darlene, there are Koch

Darlene, there are Koch funded chairs of economics, and the "stink tanks" that take the money from the very profitable Oil Companies are flush with this stuff.  The Texas Oil Pool with all those philosopher/drillers got a lot of money into the Rightwing Foundations, and it all goes to keep their market positions and money working for them.  The idea that this is some kind of objective disagreement between the science of oil and the greenies is in your "anti-leftist" myopia.  You really love to think that we are such lightweight ninnies instead of people who have done our homework and checked out the shallow arguments on your side.

Were you able to come here and present a respectful and cogent case instead of landing like a load of crap with a chip on your shoulder we might have spent more time working through some of your stuff to see if there was anyone there.  I have told you that the Empire is as evil and burdensome as you claim.  Were we able to get out of it as easily as we were pushed in, that might end the question about Obama.  Were there someone ready and able to take down the banksters, I would vote for them over Obama.  When the alternative is Mittens and Ryand, it just seems absurd to think that what caused this mess would be the way to fix it.  We'll go slower than necessary economically because people like you keep deflecting attention from who got us here and wants to keep us here.

Note:  Some of my most respected colleagues here give the priority to the wake up call about the illusions of democracy and the folly of empire.  My position is that after I have awakened and am fully conscious, I still have to deal with the consequences of my actions or inactions as a bearer of real citizen power, if only in the selection of emperors and managers.  In the New Rome, I will take Vespasian over Nero.  I will see the guy who has some chance not to go to war with Iran as better than the guy who is surrounded by the PNAC ghouls.

Once I get over the illusions, I can even respect the Reform Emperor for doing what he can.  If we could end the empire, it would be great.  I think what we are doing is toward that end, and if anyone has a better strategy we will welcome it.  Meanwhile, just keeping the empire from going batcrap crazy might be worth our time, if only to protect others rather than to save "America."  What makes no sense is to give the wheel back to the meth heads.

delete jan in iowa
WTG guys..... you both have

WTG guys..... you both have spoken well!

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
That is merely your opinion,

That is merely your opinion, drc2. Doesn't make it so.  Just because you and the kool aid brigade have swallowed the phony science that is not "settled" does not prove you know what you are talking about, it is merely your mantra. Some of my most respected colleagues disagree with your disillusioned colleagues. It is obvious you don't give a shit about America.

AGW is a phony science that will keep us in your "empire". That "meth heads"still have control of the wheel is what you and the kool aid brigade refuse to recognize.

Bush_Wacker, what you refuse to realize is that they are one and the same. Read my post #35.

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
jan, do you wear a

jan, do you wear a cheerleading ensemble when you grauvel?

delete jan in iowa
darlinedarline1@aol.com

darlinedarline1@aol.com wrote:

jan, do you wear a cheerleading ensemble when you grauvel?

You are such a troll.  Is that the best you can do?

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
Again, jan can add nothing

Again, jan can add nothing but mindless name calling. 

delete jan in iowa
LOL..... such a kidder,

LOL..... such a kidder, darline, talking about yourself again.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
darlinedarline1@aol.com

darlinedarline1@aol.com wrote:

That is merely your opinion, drc2. Doesn't make it so.  Just because you and the kool aid brigade have swallowed the phony science that is not "settled" does not prove you know what you are talking about, it is merely your mantra. Some of my most respected colleagues disagree with your disillusioned colleagues. It is obvious you don't give a shit about America.

AGW is a phony science that will keep us in your "empire". That "meth heads"still have control of the wheel is what you and the kool aid brigade refuse to recognize.

Bush_Wacker, what you refuse to realize is that they are one and the same. Read my post #35.

If you were a smoker and your body was starting to have strange symptoms that scared you then you would go and get an expert opinion.  If 9 very qualified doctors told you to stop smoking or it's going to kill you and 1 doctor told you that it might kill you but there wasn't enough evidence to know for sure, would you stop smoking?

Furthermore if you were told by those 9 doctors that they had a pill that would replace your addiction to smoking but it costs a lot of money, would you not only keep smoking but then accuse those 9 doctors of lying in order to help the pharmacy that makes the pill rich?

What would you do?  Keep smoking even though it costs a fortune and hope for the best?

polycarp2
darline wrote: Just because

darline wrote: Just because you and the kool aid brigade have swallowed the phony science that is not "settled" does not prove you know what you are talking about,

poly replies: Actually, it is pretty much settled...including the rather weak challenges raised by deniers. Watch both segments

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&I...

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
What has smoking got to do

What has smoking got to do with the "unsettled" science of AGW, no wait, global warming, no wait, climate change or what ever the latest term de jour?

What if you accidentally discovered a really simple and cheap cure for cancer and the formula was known only to you? Would you make it available to only those who could afford it at great cost to them, therefore making you wealthy beyond your imagination? Or would you make it readily available to all of humanity that needed it?

The money in cancer is in the treatment, not in the cure. The same with climate change, except its true cause is disputable.

I quit smoking on my own years ago.

 

 

polycarp2
You don't know much about

You don't know much about science, do you, Darljne?

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&I...

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
darlinedarline1@aol.com

darlinedarline1@aol.com wrote:

"Although the liberal-left mainstream media has chosen to side with the climate alarmists, the other side of the story has been getting out through the alternative media. In April of this year, 49 former top NASA scientists and astronauts released a letter they had earlier sent to NASA administrator Charles Bolden expressing their belief that the claims of NASA, and specifically its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), “that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”

A large number of noted climatologists, paleoclimatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric physicists, geophysicists, oceanographers, geologists, and scientists in virtually every field has been challenging the claims of the UN’s IPCC and vigorously denouncing the politicization of IPCC “science” to promote costly and draconian global policies. Some of the IPCC’s most severe critics are scientists who have served as lead authors and expert reviewers of IPCC reports and have witnessed from the inside the blatant bias and politics masquerading as science."

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/07/16/great-numbers-on-the-lack-of-support-among-scientists-for-agw-alarmism/

OK, how does this year's corn crop look? Or do you wish to discuss the new Canadian wines on the market? Or care to explain the changing migration patterns of ducks and geese? We only have about 400 years of recorded history on migratory birds in North America, 1200 years for Europe, and for some unknown reason, their patterns seem to be adjusting as if their climate is getting warmer... I guess ducks are flipping commie liberals now too. 

polycarp2
From above: Or care to

From above: Or care to explain the changing migration patterns of ducks and geese? We only have about 400 years of recorded history on migratory birds in North America, 1200 years for Europe, and for some unknown reason, their patterns seem to be adjusting as if their climate is getting warmer...  I guess ducks are flipping commie liberals now too.

poly replies: Don't fret. Romney probably plans on capturing all the ducks and shipping them to Cuba. They have a very unsound ideology. I guess they are listening to liberal radio.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

darlinedarline1...
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
The science that the climate

The science that the climate is changing is not disputable. The earth's climate has evolved and changed for billions of years. What is not "settled" is that man is now the cause of the earth's climate changing. Consensus is not science it is opinion. I offer the scandalous IPCC report.

Climate change has become big business itself. The money is in the continued so-called research. If the "science" of climate change is "settled", then why doesn't the government pass laws and go after the guilty culprits. Could it be that those "guilty culprits" are the same ones in collusion with government to begin with. Remember my analogy of cancer and its cure. The money is in the treatment, not the cure.